The good, the bad and the legal. That’s how the Business Select Committee’s session on the “Future of AstraZeneca” was billed, with the MPs determined to defend the British company’s independence from the preying Pfizer, ideally with legislative clout from Vince Cable.

After more than five hours of questions, the results of the shoot-out were messier than expected. Ian Read, boss of Pfizer, proved more resilient than MPs hoped, point blank refusing to commit to any UK job guarantees. Pascal Soriot muddied AstraZeneca’s image with the bombshell that British company didn’t pay any UK corporation tax last year, contributing less to the Exchequer than Pfizer. And the Business Secretary said Government intervention in the deal would be “tricky”.

Still, amid the noise and bluster, important points were made by all three witnesses. Here's a round-up of the shots that were on target.

IAN READ, PFIZER

In a classicly combative opener, chairman Adrian Bailey told Read his company had a reputation for being a “praying mantis” and a “shark that needs feeding”. “What can you say to this committee to convince us that this is a leopard that has changed its spots,” he asked.

But Read proved more than a match smoothly responding that he was “very proud” of his 35 years at Pfizer, a “company of high integrity focused on patients and delivering drugs to patients”.

He batted away key points, including complaints by Sweden’s Fredrik Reinfeldt that Pfizer “broken promises” when it took over Pharmacia. He said the Prime Minister had the “wrong facts”. “I don’t believe we broke our promises,” he said.

The Tory attack dog, Brian Binley was exasperated: “I’m trying to get under your skin, Mr Read.” He added: “Your talk so far has been a lot of sales talk but very short on fact.”

But the facts that Read did let slip were telling. First, that the combined group would spend less on R&D than the two companies invest now, and second, that there would be job cuts too. “That’s part of being efficient,” said Read. Pfizer could always grow instead, retorted Binley.

Read was vague on the details, defying repeated questions to define in numbers the 20pc of the combined group’s R&D jobs he said would be in the UK. “It could be more, it could be the same or it could be much less than it is today,” said Read.

In one of the sharpest questions of the morning, Read was asked if he’d still be bidding for AstraZeneca if the UK tax savings weren’t on offer. The Scot finally admitted: “We would change the price if we didn’t have the tax advantage.”

Mr Read insisted that he was a “man of my word” and Pfizer would “honour” the commitments made to the Government. His main aim, he insisted, was to “domicile the largest pharmaceutical company in the world, to bring the strength of the combined portfolios and to bring our financial strength into the UK and globally”. But question remained: for how long?

PASCAL SORIOT, ASTRAZENECA

If the French-born boss is planning on accepting Pfizer’s advances at some stage, he’s made it very hard for himself. Doing a deal would “create a sudden worry for me”, he told the MPs, because a “merger of this magnitude would create a distraction”. A distraction that could cost lives. In a killer blow to Pfizer, Soriot said: “What will we tell the person whose father died from lung cancer because one of our medicines was delayed because our companies were involved in saving taxes or saving costs?”

He said he was convinced that the merger would result if hefty cuts, both in jobs and investment. “It is logical to assume that a merger like this could mean substantial cost savings, and cost savings could mean job losses,” he said.

Pfizer has vowed to create a “scientific powerhouse”, emphasising the vast size of the combined group. But it was scotched by Soriot: “In research, big is not necessarily beautiful,” he said, explaining the increasing influence of small, innovative biotech companies.

Just as it seemed he and the MPs were at one, Soriot dropped the clanger that AstraZeneca paid not UK corporation tax last year. He explained that the company had paid “in excess of £500m a year” in tax but a drop in exports, due to patent expires, and an increase in R&D had erased its liabilities. MPs were not impressed but let him off lightly. Cable, following on, said he was sure HMRC “will want to look at it”.

Soriot moved on to happier ground by vowing “decades” of commitment to the UK, demonstrated by his plans for its Cambridge HQ. As if remembering himself, Soriot added: “It’s impossible to say we would never accept any offer. We are very well aware of our fiduciary duty.” But he hasn’t left much wriggle room.

VINCE CABLE, BUSINESS SECRETARY

Cable is clearly itching to intervene in Pfizer’s plans for a mega-deal but he was at pains to steer a correctly neutral path. Britain faced a “dilemma”, he said, of wanting to keep both an open economy and a research base in which the Government had invested millions. He said there was a “live debate” about whether to extend the “public interest” qualification for Government intervention to include R&D. But he said using it would be “tricky”.

“The framework which we have under the act confines the public interest test quite narrowly and all of that takes place within the framework of European merger law,” he said. Later he added that the Brussels would “almost certainly” look at the deal from a competition point of view.

The Takeover Code had been strengthened already, he explained, but was unlikely to be used in this case. Instead, “legislative remedies”, in the form of secondary legislation, was more likely. He vowed to be “even handed” in his judgement but made it clear both he and the Coalition are ready to pounce.